Old establishment, new establishment – both have failed

Posted by on

“The “British establishment” today is somewhat removed from its origins in the class system and privilege. In government, explains researcher Aeron Davis, the change started in the 1980s when Oxbridge types began to be displaced from the upper rungs of Whitehall, as an emphasis on “meritocracy” and expertise represented by grammar school education, the professions and PhDs took hold. Then came change in the business world, where “flabby, inefficient old money was being run out of town by a new energetic breed succeeding on merit”. Thus the country’s elites became more disparate.

“Neoliberalism, the ideology of small state, free markets and low taxes, held promise of binding together these modern elites – but “after decades its flaws and contradictions are becoming too large to deal with,” writes Davis. “I have come to believe that the establishment is no longer coherent or collective or competent. Its failings are not only causing larger schisms, inequalities and precariousness in Britain; they also threaten the very foundations of establishment rule itself.” (Guardian, 27 Feb 2018)

I agree that the people who took over in the 1980s and 1990s have done a great disservice to the country. Neoliberalism has been a disaster, and no one in power has had the wit or common sense to abandon it and actually rule for the whole nation. The result is endless cut-backs for the poor, those who want to be actually educated, and those who use the National Health Service, to name a few issues, demoralising the nation.

Now watch as the Tory Party, during the next year, replaces May with a throw-back to the old Tory Party of wealth, privilege in the form of Jacob Rees-Mogg – very rich, very conservative and an apparent believer in the idea that tax is theft and the poor are poor for a good reason. More about Rees-Mog on another day, but my point is that the failure of the “new establishment” will not produce a liberal reaction but, very likely, return Britain to the days of the old establishment again and an effort to finally end the welfare state. This is the objective, and Brexit is just a means of getting there. How can one maintain peace of mind watching these dismal events I have difficulty in discerning.

I can’t bear it

Posted by on

A Chinese family was shocked when the pet dog they had raised for two years turned out to be a black bear. The family bought what they thought was a Tibetan mastiff in 2016. They realised their mistake when it wouldn’t stop growing and started walking on two legs. “The more he grew, the more like a bear he looked,” said Su Yun, who lives near Kunming, Yunnan province. “I’m a little scared of bears,” she added.

Australia ain’t what it used to be. The great Brexit delusion.

Posted by on

Twenty-six years of unimpeded growth and waves of immigration into Australia have created a diverse and prosperous nation that is completely focused on Asia. Its traditions may be western, but Australia is becoming emotionally detached from its former rulers.

Too many members of the Conservative Party in Britain think Australia and the other Commonwealth nations are waiting to renew the old, close relationships. In fact, Australia’s dynamic services-focused model is what most liberal Brexiters desire for the UK. While the UK made itspath in Europe, they made theirs elsewhere. Prioritising links with the British Isles is no longer part of the plan. A stark reality check is on the way. Australia is seeking to make a decisive break by becoming a republic.

A prominent Australian republican is quoted as saying, “Progressives see Britain’s hereditary monarchy as completely at odds with our sense of a fair go. Australian Conservatives think about Australia’s independence and maturity, as well as it s divergent economic interests. Britain’s entry into the EU single market was painful for our business and Brexit can’t reverse what happened.”. Regardless of whether Labor or rightwing Liberals win federal elections on 2019,the party leaders, Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull, are both staunch republicans and are planning to have a referendum to end the Queen’s (nominal) reign there. Poor Queen!

I used to go to Australia on business back in the 1980s and realised then that the emotional tie with Britain was tenuous-to-non-existent, to say the least. Aussies had the reputation of giving English businessmen a particularly hard time, and I was advised to try to deal with expatriot Brits who were courteous and helpful. They were absolutely right!

It boggles the mind how Brexiters can be so totally out of touch, living in the past, harping on a lost empire, which our debating society at school decided was dead and gone in the 1950s. Many Australians were thinking the same thing at the time. Should young Brits now be focusing on China or India? Just suggesting it makes you realise that Britain shouldn’t be leaving the EU at all!

Are Oxford and Cambridge prejudiced?

Posted by on

David Lammy, the MP for Tottenham in North London, has recently acquired data on admissions to Oxford and Cambridge universities. It shows that the vast majority of those who get in to the UK’s two best universities are from relatively wealthy families. A disproportionate number are from London and the South East. And while ethnic minorities as a whole are well-represented, black students are underrepresented, making up only 1% of of offers from Cambridge between 2010-2015.

For Lammy, the reason for this is simple. Oxford and Cambridge are prejudice. But the problem with prejudice is that it is very difficult to prove and quantify. And while anecdotal evidence of bigotry should not be discounted entirely, it is difficult to see UK higher education institutions being intentionally discriminatory. Partly because discrimination is illegal, and any university would be significantly harmed were it to be found guilty of it. And partly because there is an incentive against discrimination. If universities do not prioritise merit above all else, their cohort of students will be worse.

The main reason some sorts of students are overrepresented compared with others is because they attend better schools, something which no university can change. To a lesser extent, socioeconomic underrepresentation at Oxbridge is due to wealthier students applying for less competitive courses, most famously Classics. Once predicted grades and the relative competitiveness of courses is taken into account, those who are accepted into Oxford and Cambridge are broadly representative of those who apply. Thus, Lammy’s accusation of Oxbridge discrimination is tenuous at best.

However, Lammy’s proposed solutions are not nearly as unreasonable. He calls for a centralised (as opposed to a collegiate) admissions process, the creation of foundation years programmes with lower entry requirements (many universities already do this), the direct contact of disadvantaged pupils to encourage them to apply, and weight to be given to a student’s background when deciding who to give offers to- something which the world-beating Ivy League universities do.

Of course, Oxbridge is welcome to do all of that, though socioeconomic considerations should not be so significant as to be given greater weight than academic success. But ultimately, universities ought to remain independent from government control. The last thing Britain needs is for higher education to be politicised the way standard education already has been. Running things by government diktat is nearly always inferior to delegation and local autonomy. Students ought to be free from being used as political football. So although the universities may implement Lammy’s recommendations, they should not be compelled to do so.

Ultimately, the problem with British education is that even within the state comprehensive school system, wealthy children considerably outperform their poorer counterparts. To a limited extent, this is inevitable: wealthy children benefit from pushy parents, private tutoring, and perhaps better genes. This is just as true in areas with selective grammar schools as in those without. Sadly, I don’t know how this gap can be closed. Funding could always be increased for schools in poor areas, but it’s difficult to see that making that much of a difference. I can only suggest that poor children should be encouraged to be as ambitious and successful as possible; the current stigma against wealth and intelligence in many schools, including the one I went to, must end. But until state schools in deprived areas up their game, the privileged nature of Oxford and Cambridge students will continue.

Trickle down economics

Posted by on

Republicans, unbelievably, are once again forcing trickle-down economics on the United States, despite the idea being almost unanimously derided by reputable economists and financiers. It’s almost as if Republicans are unaware that the latest experiment in trickle-down has practically bankrupted the state of Kansas and has done little or nothing for North Carolina. But they can’t leave this bogus ideology alone.

What does work economically is to put cash into the hands of the poor and not-so-poor, because they immediately go out and spend it, either on better health insurance, a real holiday, new clothes or something better than fast food. The bouncy resulting profits still eventually accrue to the donors of Republican Congressmen in the form of dividends – it just takes a little more time to filter through. In the meantime poorer people have bigger incomes and, very importantly, feel better about the world, less abandoned and more accepting of immigrants, maybe. But somehow Republican politicians have an ideological aversion to the less well-to-do. They yatter on about the latter, but seem to secretly despise them as “losers”.

I am advocating what actually works to boost an economy. Call it TRICKLE-UP. It benefits everyone. Meanwhile, a banker I spoke to the other day tells me the money in banking circles is on a crash in the last quarter of 2019 and an end to an improving economic cycle originating with the previous Administration. For what it is worth you have been warned!

Smacking children

Posted by on

Opponents of smacking say that children who are smacked are more likely to misbehave, and to engage in delinquent, criminal or antisocial behaviour, and even develop mental illnesses. They say that research has found that physically punishing children can have disastrous consequences in later life, that parents who smack their children are less likely to have a good relationship with their children, and that children who are spanked are more likely to experience emotional and physical abuse and neglect. Moreover, smacked children are more likely to go on to be aggressive themselves, with their peers, their own children and their eventual partners. People who were smacked as children are also at a higher risk of having low self-esteem, depression or alcohol dependency.

Since Sweden banned smacking in 1979, 52 other states around the world have followed suit, including Scotland. The UK is one of only eight countries that haven’t committed to outlawing corporal punishment of children.

I can only give my own opinion, based on personal experience. Life is not simple and context is all-important. The key is Epicurean moderation and, to quote Gilbert & Sullivan, “making the punishment fit the crime”, but judiciously and infrequently. Children need boundaries and discipline, and pretending that they don‘t does them no good at all. Simple observation suggests that a lack of home discipline itself does lasting damage to society, and laisser faire does not make children happy.

My grandfather had a barrage balloon on his farm during the Second World War. When not up in the air deterring German bombers the balloon was moored near the house. Against express instruction and severe admonition my sister and I climbed up the ladder onto the massive balloon and were playing when the air-raid siren went off. As we suddenly rose in the air we both screamed blue murder – we had very nearly been whisked to several hundred feet in the sky. This was first time a slipper was used on my backside by a distraught mother. Even then, little though I was, I knew the punishment was well deserved. “There, there, desr, that was naughty” was just too moderate under the circumstances.

Abortion in Ireland: the weaknesses of the Repeal campaign.

Posted by on

On 25 May, Ireland will vote on whether to repeal the 8th Amendment to its constitution, which prohibits abortion unless a mother’s life is threatened. Based on opinion polling, the Repeal campaign should win. But polls have tightened in recent weeks. About a fifth of Irishmen are undecided. The result will almost certainly not be as decisive as the referendum held a few years ago, in which gay marriage was approved by two-thirds of the Irish electorate.

For most Irish people, repealing the 8th Amendment is a necessary step towards aligning Irish law with the rest of the developed world. Women shouldn’t have to travel to Great Britain to have abortions, as they currently do. In an increasingly secular society, moral questions like abortion should be a matter of personal discretion, not state policy. The Catholic Church no longer has the right to dictate social policy, having been hit by a series of awful child and sexual abuse scandals. Legislating for legal abortion recognises the autonomy a woman has over her own body. Predictably, the more radical feminist elements of the Repeal campaign have accused their opponents of misogyny, portraying the pro-life movement as a bunch of entitled men who wish to control women.

I tentatively side with the Repeal campaign, mostly because I think it’s a matter of personal conscience. I’m agnostic as to whether an unborn foetus is a human being, and at what stage life begins. I personally would be possibly uncomfortable with my future wife having an abortion. But for the most part, it should be up to individuals to decide.

Having said that, the Repeal campaign are making several mistakes. And if unchecked, they will continue to make them once they’ve won the referendum.

The proposed abortion legislation to replace the 8th Amendment isn’t up to scratch. It mandates a 72-hour waiting period after a doctor has approved an abortion before a termination can take place. In Britain, there isn’t such a waiting period. I don’t see why Ireland should have one. The law only allows for abortion up to 12 weeks, after which a pregnancy must be a serious threat to the life or physical health of the woman. The law doesn’t specify a justification for the 12-week period, as opposed to the more usual 24-week period. In these respects, the law would be considerably more strict than Britain. Perhaps this is to moderate the pro-choice cause to win the referendum, but I don’t buy the logic as far as policy is concerned.

But in one crucial aspect, the law is less strict than in Britain. Before 12 weeks, Ireland will allow abortion for any reason. This is de jure more liberal than in Britain, where there is at least a nominal mental health requirement. I think this is where the pro-life campaigners have a point. Gender-discriminatory abortion, or any other abortion based on prejudice, should be illegal, regardless of the stage of the pregnancy. In China, where abortions of girls are more common than abortions of boys, there is a severe gender imbalance in the population.

The Repeal campaign have also made mistakes in the way they’ve fought the referendum. The campaign has been too Dublin-centric (like most Irish political movements), and too middle class. There has been too little of an attempt to reach out to rural, working class Ireland. The radical aspect of the Repeal campaign is ugly. Even as an atheist, I disapprove of the rabidly anti-Catholic sentiment propagated by some pro-choice campaigners. They should try to accommodate practising Catholics, not alienate them, even if Irish Catholicism is a spent force. It’s also wrong to portray the pro-life movement as misogynistic. Many prominent opponents of abortion are women. No one has argued against abortion on the basis of female inferiority. Being pro-choice is no pre-requisite for being a feminist, whatever some radicals would have you believe.

None of this is to predict a loss for the Repeal campaign. They will probably win by a comfortable, if not overwhelming margin. The Catholic Church has lost most of the influence and moral authority it once had, having stayed remarkably quiet during the course of the campaign. But proponents of legal and safe abortion need to develop a consistent and defendable theory of what abortion is, and why and when it should be allowed. Proposing legislation that is obviously the result of political scheming is not a viable long-term solution. Equally, the more liberal aspects of the law will frighten pro-lifers, and to an extent understandably so. Having said that, the first step to a measured debate on abortion policy is the repeal of the 8th Amendment. I wish Ireland the very best of luck.

 

Who will suffer economically the worst from Brexit?

Posted by on

Many areas of the UK that voted for Brexit will suffer the most from the economic consequences of leaving the EU. Researchers at the University of Birmingham studied regional variations in the share of labour income and GDP reliant on the EU, and found that areas in the Midlands and north of England, many of which voted for Brexit, had the greatest exposure to possible negative trade-related consequences. The study also appears to contradict claims by the Leave campaign that London benefited the most from EU membership, owing to a reduction in the number of banks – and their employees – in the City of London. Looking at Europe as a whole, the study found that an estimated 2.64% of EU GDP was at risk from Brexit trade-related consequences whereas 12% of UK GDP was at risk.

Some economists think 12% is too pessimistic, but still expects the GDP to drop 8% at least over the next 5 years before it edges up again. This is a big drop. The idea that there are numerous countries out there eager to sign trade pacts is wishful thinking, and there are a number of reasons why a special trade deal with the US is undesirable, and given what the current American government is doing to standards, extremely so. British farmers are in any case extremely vulnerable, all the more so under an American trade deal.

There is no way, in my opinion, that Brexit can enhance British prosperity. Observers are talking about letting the right-wing Tories have their way so that they own the debacle, and look forward to the possibility that, having wrecked the economy, a new vote will see the self-same Tories conclusively out of power, letting the UK once again join the EU. It’s possible.

Shooting schoolkids

Posted by on

Another day, another massacre of schoolchildren. The usual suspects, anxious to safeguard the NRA and gun manufacturing income, are telling us that the armed guards in the latest school horror, prevented the deaths being more numerous. They can’t prove that and in any case there should be no school shooting, anytime, anywhere. Period.

The fact is that shooters know that they have to get past security and (where they exist) the armed guards if they are to murder innocent children. They have a huge advantage: total surprise. However alert guards are thay still don’t know from which direction an attack will come. Unless there are multiple guards, surprising one or two men is not difficult.

I know whereof I speak, although the circumstances were entirely different. This happened to me while I was in the army. Innocently entering a room, supposedly full of people on my side, a .303 bullet passed through my hair, grazing my forehead, and lodging itself in the doorframe. A trained soldier, I had a loaded sub-machine gun in my hands. I was completely paralysed, not to mention terrified. I just stood there, frozen. As Winston Churchill inaccurately observed: “Nothing is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result”. No, Sir Winston, wrong! (The shot was an accident, but the difference between that and terrorism eluded me at the time).

Were I brought up on sherriffs, the wild West, Hollywood mythology, stage coaches, robberies and ridiculously accurate gunfire, I too would believe in sharpshooters gunning down school attackers, just as you see in movies. The messy truth is that if you are suddenly attacked from an unexpected direction you simply do not wheel round and put a bullet through the forehead of an attacker. Most people would be shaking with fright, unable to aim anything like accurately. The exponents of this whole idea are either naive, dishonest or lack the beginnings of an imagination. No, ban automatic weapons and sales to teenagers!

Epicurus, politics and the world of business

Posted by on

Epicurus thought that the worlds of commerce and politics “constrained the mind, limiting it to the conventional, acceptable thought”. Leaving those worlds mean that you can begin to think of more general, and arguably more important, matters. Without the pressures of business you can read and research matters that eluded you during your money-making days. Plato says, “Old age has a great sense of calm and freedom; when the passions relax their hold then……we are freed from the grasp of not one mad master but of many”. The happiest life is free from the self-imposed demands of commerce and politics.

As a former businessman I concur. Putting it behind me and devoting myself – with my wife – to a creative life was like being re-born, even as I agree that the former pattern of life was necessary for the sake of home and children. But as for a “great sense of calm”, well, that’s a bit elusive, partly because of modern technology, designed, it seems, to roil the spirits in frustration. One can only do one’s best to inject ataraxia into one’s life, despite it all.

Help me out here

Posted by on

This seems a petty matter, but it puzzles me.

I do the gardening at our house, as befits a born Brit. In the course of this, despite wearing gardening gloves, I get my hands and nails dirty. In the old days the local pharmacy (US)or chemist (UK) carried nail brushes along with toothbrushes, toothpaste, soap etc. One never gave it much of a thought (what the hell is he talking about, I hear you cry! Yes, says I, I shouldn’t even have to think of about it, let alone write a post on nail brushes!).

My point – astonishingly, none of the staff in our local pharmacy have ever even heard of a nail brush! A what, they ask? No,they carry fifty three types of shampoo, but nothing to get your nails clean. I thus have to use a toothbrush. Yes, a toothbrush.

Epicurus conceived his philosophy in his garden. I’m sure he did the odd bit of weeding for mindless relaxation, and some slave used a donkey-hair brush to clean his nails. That was 2,300 years ago. Talk to me about progress.

What has happened to the BBC?

Posted by on

Here are BBC headlines on May 16th, available via the BBC app on my i-pad (truly!)

“FatTax” row forces New Look price review
Single, 30,and time to leave home
Meghan’s father may not attend wedding
Dealing with a child who won’t sleep
Kristen Stewart goes barefoot at Cannes
How to dress a royal groom
Willow Smith reveals how she used to self-harm
Scariest moment in my police career
Are these (photo) Yorkshire pudding or Yorkshire pancakes?
Cold war over ice cream at school
House-bound woman crowd-funds for chair
Arsenal’s medical head, Lewin, loses job
Playing fantasy football with artificial intelligence

Meanwhile, the world is roiled by the Trump policy on Iran, protestors are being shot in Gaza, autocrats are being elected in countries like Hungary, Turkey, etc, mini- wars against terrorism popping up all over Africa. Brexit is a mess, Argentina is going broke – yet again, etc, etc.

What is wrong with the BBC? I am old enough to remember when it was the prime, world-class newscaster, respected throughout the world. I am told that the broadcast news is more serious and relevant, but why all this pandering to …..whom exactly?

Saying “thank you”

Posted by on

A woman wrote to the Washington Post on May 21,2017 complaining about a daughter-in-law who never thanked anyone for gifts, for meals, indeed, for anything. Carolyn Hax, who writes an agony column for the Post, replied in part that her lack of manners hurt the daughter-in-law more than it hurts the giver. “A glaring social deficit like this will compromise her with almost everyone who experiences it”.

This woman was almost certainly never taught courtesy by her parents. It is a delight to meet a courteous young person who thanks and shows respect and courtesy to everyone, old, young and of every race and creed. It does a child no favours to skip the dull and frustrating business of drilling manners into small children, tiresome as the process is.

I suggest that manners, Epicurean behaviour that greases the wheels of social life, may be being ignored by both parents working full time outside the home. Are they returning home tired in the evening? Are they expecting that schools will do the jobs that should be done by parents, e.g civilising a child? I know really smart, capable parents who are bringing up stellar kids. But as for the others, how njkdo we persuade them that even such a simple thing as saying ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ is a sign that you have joined centuries-long cohorts of people who understand how to win friends and influence others, the bedrock of our social system.